He'll be claimed again. If there was no interest, there'd have been no other claims on him and Carolina could've sent him right down to Charlotte.

I don't believe that's true on either front.

13.22 When a Club claims a Player on Regular, Re-Entry or Unconditional Waivers, and, subsequently, in the same season it requests Waivers on the same Player and the original owning Club is the successful and only Club making a Waiver claim, then the original owning Club shall be entitled to Loan such Player to a club in another league within thirty days without further Waivers being asked; provided that such Player has not participated in ten or more NHL Games (cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days (cumulative) following such successful claim.

The fact that Boychuk has to go through waivers again means there was at least one other team that entered a claim on him, but Carolina had the higher priority. If someone else put a claim in, then someone else was interested and he'll almost certainly find himself on a different team again tomorrow. If noone else had put a claim in, then Carolina - being the original owning club - wouldn't have had to put him on waivers again.

mikey287 wrote:But Carolina, for these purposes, is not the "original owning club", right? That would be Nashville, would it not?

The problem is that the NHL actually never defines "original owning club", so there's nothing in literature anywhere explaining it.

From a fairness perspective, I assume it would have to be Carolina in this case provided they entered a claim on Boychuk when the Pens waived him. Based off the Mar 2 standings, Nashville (.548) would've been higher in priority than Carolina (.553) meaning Carolina could've entered a claim and not got him. Would it be fair (morally and legally) to declare that Carolina is no longer the "original owning club" even though they expressed interest in getting him back by putting in a claim?

Clearly, the "owning club" would be whoever placed him on waivers. I believe "original owning club" refers to the very first team to lose him on waivers and they maintain that distinction as long as they don't pass on a claim attempt.

tfrizz, perhaps, but this case presents a suggestion that the original owning club is the club that owned before the club placing on waivers. Now that Carolina has waived, it's Nashville. When Nashville waived, it was Pittsburgh. When Pittsburgh waived, it was Carolina. Or at least that appears to be the intent.

I think you're overthinking it tfrizz. In any event, Carolina's rights as the "original owning club" if such a designation actually exists in the terms you're referring to, would have expired because he spent 10 NHL games AND 30 NHL days on a different pro roster than their own. That's why he needs to be waived again. Quite simply, if the language was as you imply, Boychuk could have been claimed and sent down in the same day. Carolina had to waive him to send him down, implying that Nashville, for these purposes, is the "original owning club" or "prior club"...

mikey287 wrote:I think you're overthinking it tfrizz. In any event, Carolina's rights as the "original owning club" if such a designation actually exists in the terms you're referring to, would have expired because he spent 10 NHL games AND 30 NHL days on a different pro roster than their own. That's why he needs to be waived again. Quite simply, if the language was as you imply, Boychuk could have been claimed and sent down in the same day. Carolina had to waive him to send him down, implying that Nashville, for these purposes, is the "original owning club" or "prior club"...

Or implying that there was another team that entered a claim on Boychuk. The rule was copied word for word out of the 2005 CBA.

The statement "provided that such Player has not participated in ten or more NHL Games (cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days (cumulative) following such successful claim" seems pretty cut-and-dry - the 10 games / 30 days, in the context of this rule, only begins once the "original owning team" successfully claims the player back AND no other team enters a claim at that time. It doesn't matter how many games or days they spend with another team.

This is from the Charlotte Checkers (Carolina's AHL affiliate themselves) re: Boychuk

Before the Hurricanes could send Boychuk back to Charlotte, he would have to go on waivers for a fourth time.

Should the Hurricanes begin that process in the coming days, Nashville, as the team which most recently lost him, would have the exclusive right to reclaim him and assign him directly to its AHL affiliate in Milwaukee. Any other team that claimed him would need waivers to make such assignment, which is the situation Carolina finds itself in now.

What I infer from that is that it's only the most recent prior club. Otherwise, we would be the "original owning club", right? Because he didn't stick with Nashville long enough.

Last edited by mikey287 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unlikely, AIUI, many technical things like this remained unchanged. Things were wiped out like re-entry waivers, but there wasn't a lot of tinkering done. Both sides are pretty happy with the procedures, generally speaking. Of course, until we see the new CBA, it's a possibility. But some of these rules are carried over from the 1995 CBA...

Before the Hurricanes could send Boychuk back to Charlotte, he would have to go on waivers for a fourth time.

Should the Hurricanes begin that process in the coming days, Nashville, as the team which most recently lost him, would have the exclusive right to reclaim him and assign him directly to its AHL affiliate in Milwaukee. Any other team that claimed him would need waivers to make such assignment, which is the situation Carolina finds itself in now.

What I infer from that is that it's only the most recent prior club. Otherwise, we would be the "original owning club", right? Because he didn't stick with Nashville long enough.

Well, that helps explain things... but it's still confusing and rather stupid IMO.

MRandall25 wrote:Key word, I guess, is 2005 CBA. Possible that it could have changed?

From my understanding of the new CBA, the only change to the waiver system I'm aware of is that all waiver periods are now 24 hours. Under the 2005 CBA, the period for players waived on weekends was 48 hours.

And yes, confusing but really, this is quite a rarity. And it seems pretty fair all things considered. It's just unlikely that a third team ever jumps in like Nashville did. So, now Nashville is in position to claim him and send him down if they need the help down there.

Last edited by mikey287 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mikey287 wrote:Right, no re-entry waivers. And yes, only 24-hour waivers.

And yes, confusing but really, this is quite a rarity. And it seems pretty fair all things considered. It's just unlikely that a third team ever jumps in like Nashville did. So, now Nashville is in position to claim him and send him down if they need the help down there.

Which means Carolina could be (likely will be) completely screwed out of their rights to Boychuk.

Which I have no problem at all with. Neither would the union. A player that clearly isn't wanted at the NHL level in one organization after X years gets a chance in a different organization (if Nashville does in fact re-claim him).

If Carolina really wants a player like Boychuk, they could easily get one for futures or a conditional 7th with a simple phone call. Carolina has a close working relationship with the Plymouth Whalers of the OHL as well, they can just sign one of their overagers too...

I can't see any reason Nashville wouldn't claim him back. If someone else puts a claim in and messed up the "straight to Milwaukee" track, they can just drop him back on waivers.

My biggest problem stems from the fact that Carolina never got the chance to retain him as the "original owning club" when the Pens waived him because Nashville was higher in waiver priority. It just seems like a very sloppy rule to me.

tfrizz wrote:I can't see any reason Nashville wouldn't claim him back. If someone else puts a claim in and messed up the "straight to Milwaukee" track, they can just drop him back on waivers.

I don't know if they need help in Milwaukee or not...but if they don't have major injuries down there, why would they? There's clearly interest from another team to have him in the minors, they would really have to have a pressing need. If they were just renting him at the NHL level to see if he could usurp the legendary Gabriel Bourque for team-scoring lead, then they'll just be happy to ditch the contract.

The loser could easily acquire Bobby Butler for a song and not miss a beat...

EDIT: If anything, Carolina should be last to get their own player back for the purposes of assigning him to the minors, right? Teams that want to use him in the NHL should have priority. The Union would see it that way at least. Boychuk is getting an NHL paycheck all this time...

tfrizz wrote:I can't see any reason Nashville wouldn't claim him back. If someone else puts a claim in and messed up the "straight to Milwaukee" track, they can just drop him back on waivers.

I don't know if they need help in Milwaukee or not...but if they don't have major injuries down there, why would they? There's clearly interest from another team to have him in the minors, they would really have to have a pressing need. If they were just renting him at the NHL level to see if he could usurp the legendary Gabriel Bourque for team-scoring lead, then they'll just be happy to ditch the contract.

The loser could easily acquire Bobby Butler for a song and not miss a beat...

EDIT: If anything, Carolina should be last to get their own player back for the purposes of assigning him to the minors, right? Teams that want to use him in the NHL should have priority. The Union would see it that way at least. Boychuk is getting an NHL paycheck all this time...

Milwaukee appears to be pretty thin at forward. Their leading scorer (Beck) and 2nd leading scorer (Mueller) are both with the Preds right now making Austin Watson the top scorer on their active roster with 30 points in 60 games. I'm sure they'd love to add a point-per-game guy like Boychuk.